The Diehards of June 3[1]Favour an Immediate Offensive

Published:First published inPravdaNo. 74 June 19 (6), 1917.

      Published according to thePravdatext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1977,

      Moscow,Volume 25,

      pages48-50.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandC. FarrellPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.  

      2000You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thegentlemen
    of June 3, who after 1905 helped Nicholas Romanov drench our
    country in blood, strangle the revolutionaries and re-establish
    the unlimited power of the land owners and capitalists, are
    holding their meetings simultaneously with the Congress of
    Soviets.[2]

WhileTsereteli, who found himself in bourgeois captivity, tried
      by a thousand tricks to hush up the vital importance and urgency
      of the political question of an immediate offensive, the
      diehards of June 3, companions-in-arms of Nicholas the Bloody
      and Stolypin the Hangman, landowners and capitalists, did not
      hesitate to put the question straight forwardly and openly. Here
      is the latest and most essential resolution on the offensive
      which they adoptedunanimously:

“TheDuma (??) considers that only an immediate
    offensive and close co-operation with the Allies will guarantee a
    speedy termination of the war and consolidation of the liberties
    won by the people.”

Thatis clear enough.

Thesepeople are real politicians, men of action, faithful
      servants oftheirclass, of the landowners and
      capitalists.

Andhow do Tsereteli, Chernov and the rest servetheirclass? They offer pious wishes in words and support the
      capitalists in actions.

Tsereteliasserted that the question of animmediateoffensive could not even be raised, for were he, Minister
      Tsereteli. to know anything about an “immediate” offensive, he,
      a Minister, would say nothing about it to anyone. In sayingthat, Tsereteli had no inkling (poor innocent man) that he wasrefutedby the diehards of June 3, refuted byactions,for they did not hesitate to speak, even in a
      resolution, and in everyone’s hearing, about an offensive—not an offensive in general, but animmediateoffensive. And they were right, for this is a political issue,
      an issue bearing on the destiny of our revolution as a whole.

Thereis no middle course. You must either be for or against an
    "immediate offensive". You cannot abstain from expressing an
    opinion. In this situation, to evade the issue by referring or
    alluding to military secrecy would be positively unworthy of a
    responsible politician.

Tofavour an immediate offensive means being in favour of
    continuing the imperialist war, slaughtering Russian workers and
    peasants in order to strangle Persia, Greece, Galicia, the Balkan
    peoples, etc., reviving and strengthening the counter-revolution,
    completely nullifying all the phrases about "peace without
    annexations", and waging warforannexations.

Tobe against an immediate offensive means being in favour of
    all power passing to the Soviets, of arousing the revolutionary
    initiative of the oppressed classes, of animmediateoffer by the oppressed classes ofallcountries of "peace
    without annexations", peace based on the precise condition of
    overthrowing the tyranny of capital and liberatingallcolonies,allthe oppressed nationalities, or
    nationalities not enjoying full rights, bar none.

Theformer way is, together with the capitalists, in the
    interests of the capitalists and for attaining the aims of the
    capitalists. It is the way of confidence in the capitalists, who
    for more than two years have been promising everything under the
    sun and many things besides, provided the war is “carried on to
    victory".

Thelatter way is one of breaking with the capitalists, of
      distrusting them, of curbing their vile self-interest, of
      putting an end to their business of making hundreds of millions
      in profits from contracts. It is the way of confidence in the
      oppressed classes, primarily in the workers ofallcountries, the way of confidence in a worldworkers’
      revolution against capital,the way of supporting it in
      full measure.

Youmust choose the one or the other. Tsereteli, Chernov and
    the rest prefer a middle course. But there is no middle course. If
    they vacillate or try to get away with mere talk, they, Tsereteli,
    Chernov and the rest, will completely make themselves tools in the
    hands of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.

[1]InRussian political writing, the termdiehardswas applied to the
extreme Right wing of the reactionary landowners.

[2]Theterm “gentle men of June 3” applies to the bourgeois and
landowner parties (Right-wing, Octobrist and Cadet) which won a vast
superiority in the Third and Fourth Dumas under the
counter-revolutionary electoral law passed by the tsarist government on
June 3 (16), 1907. The law curtailed the already limited suffrage
of the workers and peasants.

TheJune 3 parties periodically held so-called private meetings
of Deputies to the Fourth Duma. One of these meetings took place
on June 3 (16), 1917, that is, the day the All-Russia Congress of
Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies was convened. This
was not mere coincidence, for the counter-revolutionary parties
of the Russian bourgeoisie and landowners were trying to exert
political pressure on the petty-bourgeois conciliators, the
Mensheviks and S.R.s, who commanded a majority at the Congress.

Amongthe items, the meeting discussed foreign policy matters.
It was addressed by V. A. Maklakov, P. N. Milyukov, V. V.
Shulgin and other Octobrist and Cadet leaders. They insisted on the
vigorous fulfilment of commitments in respect of the Allies and
on putting an end to the revolution. The resolution adopted by
the meeting said as much.